Re: [PATCH] blame: allow -L n,m to have an m bigger than the file's line count

["SZEDER Gábor" <szeder@fzi.de>]

Hi Stephen,


On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 11:27:44PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Sometimes I want to blame a file starting at some point and ending at
> the end of the file. In my haste I'll write something like this:
> 
> $ git blame -L5,2342343 -- builtin-blame.c
> 
> and be greeted by a die message telling me that my end range is greater
> than the number of lines in the file. Obviously I can do:
> 
> $ git blame -L5, -- builtin-blame.c
> 
> and get what I want but that isn't very discoverable. If the range is
> greater than the number of lines just truncate the range to go up to
> the end of the file.
> 
> Update the docs to more accurately reflect the defaults for n and m too.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <bebarino@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> I realize this is late in the game for 1.7.0 so I'll resend if this
> isn't picked up.
> 
>  Documentation/blame-options.txt |    4 +++-
>  builtin-blame.c                 |    4 +++-
>  t/t8003-blame.sh                |    4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/blame-options.txt b/Documentation/blame-options.txt
> index 4833cac..620660d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/blame-options.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/blame-options.txt
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
>  --show-stats::
>  	Include additional statistics at the end of blame output.
>  
> --L <start>,<end>::
> +-L [<start>],[<end>]::
>  	Annotate only the given line range.  <start> and <end> can take
>  	one of these forms:
>  
> @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ starting at the line given by <start>.
>  This is only valid for <end> and will specify a number
>  of lines before or after the line given by <start>.
>  +
> +Note: if <start> is not given it defaults to 1 and if <end> is not given it
> +defaults to the number of lines in the file.
>  
>  -l::
>  	Show long rev (Default: off).

I agree that its too late for the behavioral change, but IMHO the
documentation update part can be considered as a bugfix, and as such
it could perhaps be included in 1.7.0.  (I never knew that <start> or
<end> can be omitted...  so thanks for the hint anyway)


Best,
Gábor